Joe Rogan & Michael Malice on Trump’s Trolling

Transcript

00:00
that’ss eyes that are for people who are
00:01
actually suffering minorities be like no
00:02
no this is not cool so she’s not saying
00:05
this from small blogs I’m not seeing
00:07
this from anything main strike yep
00:09
correct because mainstream they’re
00:10
always gonna cover for this that right
00:11
100% of the time yeah they’re gonna
00:13
cover their the thing about those blogs
00:15
is like a lot of them are basically like
00:16
Ari Shaffir refers to them as like
00:18
college papers yeah it’s like a lot of
00:21
these blogs so a college student written
00:23
yeah but they’re often speaking truth oh
00:25
yeah well I would hope I would hope more
00:28
would come out and say hey you can’t say
00:31
you’re Native American just like like
00:33
you imagine the outrage if I just
00:36
started call myself African American
00:37
well do you know what did you see what
00:39
Trump said he said well I can’t call her
00:41
Pocahontas anymore because she’s not an
00:43
Indian and I’m just like oh my god we’re
00:48
not worthy he says some hilarious shit
00:51
oh yeah he really does he really does
00:54
he’s fucking funny off-the-cuff oh yeah
00:57
really is you know and the way he goes
00:59
after people like even though he’s the
01:01
president like he still calls people
01:04
fucking losers I mean he’s still he
01:06
still caused him losers on Twitter and
01:09
goes after them horse face horse face he
01:11
called star McDaniels horse face just
01:14
think of how repulsive he is physically
01:17
he’s fat his faces all fuckin hanging
01:20
off of his bones he’s got white raccoon
01:23
eyes and orange skin and yet he still
01:26
will mock stormy Daniels and call her
01:29
horse face someone tweeted out I forget
01:32
who and I apologized the thing he said
01:34
they go imagine what happens that he
01:36
Trump’s the first person who fucked a
01:38
porn star and she had to brag about it
01:40
and then she paid him yeah yeah well he
01:44
did pay her right but what he paid her
01:48
what she’s gonna have to pay him is
01:50
probably like a factor of three or fours
01:53
I mean how much more she’s gonna wanna
01:55
pain yes for 350k that’s all he asked
01:58
for you uh that’s proved very reasonable
02:01
yeah that doesn’t even cover her book
02:02
yes that’s probably like he just wants
02:04
just be done like that yet it just yet
02:06
give me that paper yeah just give me a
02:07
little something I need a little
02:09
something from you
02:10
with this let this slide I want 300,000
02:14
yeah yeah it’s probably her book that’s
02:16
really all the money no she got more
02:17
than 350 I’m positive
02:19
how much you think she got for that book
02:20
750 I’d guess yeah but she’s got to pay
02:23
taxes sure
02:24
and her agents getting 15 yeah she’s
02:26
probably not even bringing three home so
02:29
it’s all that’s money’s gone oh yeah
02:31
that’s all gone all gone 100% gone and
02:33
no one’s buying that book it stiffed
02:36
yeah yeah nobody gives a shit
02:37
she said it already like I fucked the
02:40
president that’s your book your book as
02:42
I fucked the president well you know
02:43
here’s the funny part with her remember
02:44
this people she was making fun of his
02:46
dick like she’d hit a mushroom deck
02:48
whatever and people are like that’s what
02:50
she said
02:50
and then people were like that you know
02:52
as fucked up as he is that’s body
02:54
shaming he really shouldn’t make fun of
02:55
someone and she’s like you know what
02:56
you’re right I’m sorry
02:57
and then he goes hey horse face she lost
03:01
his fucking mushroom dick at like the
03:02
next day she’s back on it it was amazing
03:05
[Laughter]
The fact that he can call her horse face
and he’s the president on twitter..
But she doesn’t even have a horse face.
It doesn’t matter. I know but it’s just
so weak I mean Ted Cruz really isn’t the
Unabomber or whatever
the fuck you said
he was say that that’s the name they
cease is that Jeff gay fucking it’s also
crazy that was the best part so ted
cruz’s was known as like the best
debater in the senate he had this
Harvard or Yale whatever debating team
great debater everyone we recognized him
for this how did the fuck do you prep
for a debate be like oh yeah well your
dad shot JFK
it’s like what the fuck
wait what well It didn’t have to make
sense right people the people that hurt
Trump supporters don’t want to make
sense they just want him to win right

right exactly and it works yes yeah well
he’s just had to get zingers in oh yeah
yeah I mean it’s like roast battle more
than right and they don’t get that there
04:01
was this my favorite tweet of his my
04:03
favorite where he goes whenever I speak
04:06
of the losers and the haters I do so
04:08
with great affection it’s not their
04:10
fault they were born fucked up at
04:12
exclamation point that’s a real tweet
04:14
tweet it’s the best one
04:16
and it’s true yeah you know one of my
04:20
favorite things was him at a speech
04:21
where he was talking it was 2015 before
04:25
he even talked about running for
04:26
president or it was even I don’t think
04:29
he was a hundred percent open about
04:31
running for president and he said
04:34
there’s two ways to talk to China you
04:36
could you know could prose things you
04:38
could propose things and he says it like
04:39
you know normally and then he says or
04:41
you could say listen motherfucker yeah
04:44
you heard that no oh my god it’s great
04:46
fucking pull it it’s it’s fucking great
04:49
because everybody starts cheering yeah
04:51
because it’s so forbidden in this
04:53
environment wearing an expensive suit
04:55
standing in front of a podium he says or
04:58
you could say listen motherfuckers like
05:00
this is what we’re gonna do and
05:02
everybody started yeah it’s so exciting
05:05
it’s so much more exciting then Marco
05:08
Rubio or you know someone boom Jeb is a
05:12
waste jam is a big fat mistake I watched
05:19
those videos which speech he wasted June
05:22
of 25th now when he said mother when
05:24
he’s just just not speech when he’s
05:26
talking about China and he said listen I
05:28
the fuckers China China China yeah that
05:32
was a thing Puerto Rican when he ordered
05:36
I’m announcing a ban on all Muslim
05:39
immigration Muslim here this is a great
05:43
one do this because it’s leadership this
05:48
time instead of with his name in gold
05:49
it’s with his words this is discussing
05:52
Iraq we build a school we build a road
05:55
they blow up the road they blow up the
05:57
school we build another school we build
06:00
another road they blow them up we build
06:02
again in the meantime we can’t get a
06:04
school built in Brooklyn do the
06:06
audience’s approval talking oil we have
06:09
nobody in Washington that sits back and
06:12
said you’re not going to raise that
06:14
price you understand me
06:17
this is a long time ago sing Chinese
06:20
goods here’s your mother we’re gonna tax
06:23
you 25% while poles 2011 is that what it
06:28
says over there yeah but here’s what’s
06:30
interesting notice the person who posted
06:31
their name is say no to racists yeah
06:40
they probably put it up as a negative
06:41
thing
06:42
well no 2011 he would have been
06:43
considered a Democrat right oh no he’s
06:46
endorsed Romney he endorsed Romney
06:47
Republican race he was a Democrat until
06:50
what 2010 probably around then because
06:52
he was gonna run independent at some
06:53
point Trump 2012 look at that this is
06:55
the guy we’ve been looking for ha ha ha
06:57
seven years ago but it’s just deplorable
06:59
what changed it they probably damaged it
07:03
in the future because it says seven
07:05
years yeah fuck that’s the time travel
07:09
that hack join read uh yeah someone did
07:12
it someone definitely hacked it yeah
07:15
just hilarious they didn’t give the good
07:17
version of that either because they
07:19
believed in it well not just that
07:21
because you also see if you can find the
07:22
better version because he basically
07:24
practices it like you know people been
07:26
saying it like this right you can say it
07:28
like this or you can say listen you
07:31
motherfuckers and that’s when everybody
07:33
starts cheering he actually gave an
07:34
example yeah he actually guys what can
07:39
you do yeah so easy I drop a twenty five
07:43
percent tax on China
07:47
and you know I said to somebody that is
07:49
really the messenger the messenger is
important I could have one man saying
way to tax you 25% and I could say
another listen you motherfuckers brooder
Here’s how the Press lies on the campaign
trail he set a point I remember it was
the sense of it goes you better shut
your mouth so he didn’t say the word
mm-hmm they bleeped it and they bleeped
it to make it look like he was cursing
and he’s like you guys are fucking shady
as hell
that’s very Shady yeah that’s Shady you
can’t just bleep a pause and pretend
that there’s some sort of an offensive
word in there right so that’s really
that’s just deceptive right and it’s
pervasive they do it all the fucking
time
08:40
well who’s good out there to challenge
08:43
him they’re fucked all right fuck you
08:46
know why they’re fucked why because
08:47
we’ve never had this happen before the
08:49
whole time all those Democrats are
08:51
fighting each other for the primary for
08:52
the nomination he’s gonna be tweeting
08:53
the shit out of those debates he’s gonna
08:55
be live tweeting the debates right and
08:56
they’re not gonna they have to worry
08:58
about the tax from their colleagues but
09:00
also from the sitting president I was
09:02
like look at this dope and he’s gonna
09:05
come up with nicknames right now this
09:07
stick Danang dick he already did I’m
09:09
like it’s amazing to demand dick
09:11
Blumenthal senator from Connecticut lied
09:13
about his Vietnam service oh no I
09:15
started calling him Danang dick he lied
09:17
about his Vietnam service so got elected
09:19
yeah Wow
09:22
shameless yeah how did he lie what did
09:25
he say he said he served and he didn’t
09:27
look it up yeah I mean it’s it’s it is
09:30
brazen it wasn’t some ambiguous area I
09:32
think he’s like he never left America is
09:33
my understanding oh yeah

What is Media Trades?

You’ve probably heard about the “echo chambers” problem: Left-leaning people get news from sources that lean left, and right-leaning people from sources that lean right.

So for many people, the news just “echoes” what they already believe. And most of them are not learning anything new.

Media Trades is a simple, free tool to address this problem. Help your fellow citizens on “the other side” get out of their echo chambers!

How does it work?

To begin using Media Trades, just follow these three simple steps:

  1. Create an account. It’s super easy and there’s no risk to your privacy.
  2. Choose your “side”: Left or Right
  3. Start trading!

For more details and instructions, view our tutorial video, visit our Frequently Asked Questions page or contact us here.

Hillary Clinton Pressuring Media To “Correct” Tulsi Gabbard Stories

“In a curious turn of events, a number of major news organizations ran corrections Wednesday night over week-old reports that sparked a testy war of words between Hillary Clinton and Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

Last week, a number of media organizations, including the New York Times, CNN and Politico, ran reports saying Clinton told the podcast “Campaign HQ with David Plouffe” that Russians were “grooming” a female Democratic candidate — widely assumed to be Gabbard — for a third-party run to play a potential spoiler in the 2020 election.”

Hosts: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian

Jimmy Dore and Why Everyone Hates the Media | Useful Idiots

Comedian and podcaster Jimmy Dore joins Matt and Katie to discuss his show and media bias. Matt and Katie break down the fact-checking controversy involving The Washington Post and Bernie Sanders.

Why do people have such divergent perspectives on the Mueller Report, ranging from Trump being completely exonerated to Trump being guilty of obstruction of justice and impeachable?

Bob Sacamano
Bob Sacamano, studied Useless Information. at School of Hard Knocks
I believe that I have an example that may answer this. After Barr released the redacted Mueller report, I watched the first half of the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC and later the first half of the Hannity show on Fox.

Maddow is biased, I have no disagreement about that but the coverage she gave was completely different from Hannity. Maddow took direct quotes from the report and discussed it with her guests. She easily discussed over ten direct quotes from the report in less than half an hour. She may have taken some quotes out of context, I have not read the report yet. Obviously she also chose quotes that would reinforce her narrative. Just remember, I am not claiming that Maddow is not biased.

Hannity spent the vast majority of the first half of his show ranting about Obama, Mueller, Hillary, Loretta Lynch, the deep state, Democrats in general, etc. After about twenty minutes Hannity finally took a direct quote from the report. A quote from Trump. Hannity then went back to ranting about all the people previously mentioned. Maybe he took more direct quotes later, I can only watch so much Hannity before I vomit.

So, Hannity claims that Trump is exonerated but he cited nothing from the report to back this up. Maddow tried to back up everything she said with a direct quote from the report. The reason why people have different perspectives is because of where they get their news. Liberals may watch biased news but at least they try to back it up with facts. Many conservatives get their news from propagandists. Sadly it appears as if many conservatives don’t know propaganda when they see it.

I should probably add this. In the thirty minutes I watched, Maddow asked her viewers to read the Mueller report for themselves several times. Hannity did not ask his viewers to read the Mueller report once in the thirty minutes I watched.

‘The Enemy of the People’

Criticism of the media by a president is not necessarily a bad thing

Depending on your perspective, one of President Trump’s real talents, or one of his most baleful traits, is his knack for the zinger label, pinned on a political or institutional foe. “Crooked Hillary,” “Lyin’ Ted,” “The Swamp” — the labels often stick . . . and sting.

But who exactly is “the enemy of the people”? Trump maintains that he is not referring to the entire press, only to “fake news” coverage by mainstream-media outlets. Is such line-drawing appropriate? Even if the public at large may validly make such distinctions, should they be drawn by a president of the United States, or does that specter imperil constitutional free-press protections?

.. Before Trump zapped our politics with his lightning rod, it was a commonplace in conservative circles to complain about that most pernicious practice of the political press: the pretense of objectivity. No, we did not begrudge the New York Times and Washington Post their editorial pages, nor resent opinion pieces and programs clearly advertised as such. Our objection was to patently biased news coverage that was presented as if it were dispassionate, just-the-facts-ma’am reporting. The bias is seen and unseen, but pervasive. It is found in the reporting itself. It is intimated in the description of sources (e.g., conservatives always described as “conservative”; left-wing sources — the ACLU, SPLC, CAIR, etc. — described as civil-rights groups with no partisan agenda). Most important, it is concealed in editorial decisions about what gets covered and what does not, camouflaged by the thread that gets emphasis and the “lede” that gets buried.

.. By reporting this way, the media inculcate in the public the assumption that there is no other side of the story. The Left’s Weltanschauung is not presented merely as a worldview; it is portrayed as objective, inarguable fact, and any other way of looking at things is subversive, cynical, or psychotic.
.. Nietzsche was right that we are hard-wired to exaggerate when speaking about what ails us. That goes double for political discourse. To limn one’s political opposition as “the enemy” is common. It has been throughout history, and I’m sure I’ve done it myself. No more thought goes into it than into a sportscaster’s use of “warrior” to laud some running back who just gained 100 grueling yards. It’s just rhetoric. When we resort to it, we’re not intentionally trivializing the danger posed by actual enemies or diminishing the courage of real warriors.
.. Still, the older one gets, the easier it is to see why referring to partisan opponents as “enemies” is unhelpful. Over time, political coalitions shift. Notions about friend and foe change. To coexist and govern, we have to compromise, and casual condemnations of our opposite number as “the enemy” make compromise harder. When I was a prosecutor, I had genial relations with most of my defense-lawyer adversaries. We fought hard but saw that letting it get too sharp-elbowed, too personal, could rupture the working relationships needed to get through the case . . . and the next one. The stakes were high, but it was markedly less polarized than politics has become.
.. This president runs hot and cold in a nanosecond, so it’s probably a fool’s errand to analyze his rhetoric too closely —
  • one minute you’re “rocket man,” the barbaric dictator;
  • the next minute, you’re the “funny guy” with the “great personality” who really “loves his people,

not that I’m surprised by that.”

.. Topsy-turvy, to be sure, but Trump’s mercurial outbursts, his cavalier resort to words like “enemy” — words other presidents have been circumspect about — does not mean he perceives no difference between Jim Acosta and Osama bin Laden.

So . . . what does the president mean by “the enemy of the people”? More specifically, to whom is he referring? Well, there was an interesting exchange about that last weekend, during Trump’s sit-down interview with Fox News’s Chris Wallace.

.. In the discussion, Trump several times tried to clarify that when he refers to “the enemy of the people,” he is not speaking of all journalists; he is referring to a large subset of journalists that he calls “the Fake News.” According to the president, these are the mainstream-media outlets that align with Democrats and treat him as a partisan opponent, resulting in dishonest and inaccurate coverage of his presidency.

.. Now, you can agree or disagree with him on that, but he is entitled to his opinion. To my mind, there has been plenty of dishonest and inaccurate coverage of Trump. To be sure, there has also been plenty of honest and accurate coverage of the president saying things that are dishonest or inaccurate. Nevertheless, the sheer contempt in which this president is held by journalists is manifest. Even for those of us old enough to remember the coverage of Nixon and Reagan (as well as the Bushes), it is something to behold.

.. For one thing, the effort to delegitimize Trump’s presidency by claiming that he “colluded” in the Kremlin’s 2016 election-meddling has been tireless, and apparently effective. The effort was fueled by selective intelligence leaks and the modern media melding of opinion journalism with news reporting. After over two years of digging, investigators have lodged no collusion allegation; to the contrary, the indictments that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has filed tend to undermine any theory of a Trump–Russia criminal conspiracy. Yet the president remains under suspicion and the media routinely insinuate that Mueller’s mere issuance of indictments validates that suspicion — even though the indictments have nothing to do with Trump.

..  As Power Line’s John Hinderaker relates, recent polling by The Economist and YouGov found that nearly half of American women (48 percent) and fully two-thirds of Democrats (67 percent) actually believe that “Russia tampered with the vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President” — notwithstanding that investigators have never even suspected Russia of tampering with vote tallies, for Trump or anyone else. (The investigation involves allegations that Russia hacked Democratic email accounts.)

.. As Wallace framed the matter, there is only one press, all the journalists are part of it, and no distinctions may be drawn. “We are all together . . . we are in solidarity, sir,” he told the president, adding that, for these purposes, there is no difference between CNN, the New York Times, and Fox. Even though Wallace acknowledged that some coverage of Trump is “biased,” he maintained that the press is a monolith; therefore, the argument went, to condemn a subset of journalists is to condemn the whole of journalism.

.. While he did not air them fully (it was, after all, an interview of the president), I imagine he worries that the “enemy of the people” formulation is a case of Trump wrongly conflating opposition to Trump with opposition to America. Perhaps the issue is not so much the drawing of distinctions between worthy and unworthy journalism, but rather that the president of the United States should not be doing the drawing. The president, clearly, is not just anyone. He is the highest official of a government that is constitutionally obligated to respect freedom of the press, to refrain from threatening it. If people hear an analyst decrying media bias, that is one thing; if they hear the president decrying “the media,” they may not grasp that he intends to rebuke only a subset of the media. They may not be so sure that the rebuke is good-faith criticism, as opposed to despotic intimidation. They may conclude that free-press principles are imperil

.. The fact that Trump’s bombast makes many of us wince — “enemy” — is a style point. If you don’t like it, do a better job running against him next time. After all, when vivid language is directed at conservatives, rather than at themselves, journalists are quick to tell us that life and progress in a free society require thick-skinned toleration of objectionable language and transgressive gestures. What’s sauce for the goose . . .

.. Before President Trump started using the phrase “the enemy of the people,” fair-minded people acknowledged media bias. Conservatives complained bitterly about it. These were not attacks on journalism; they were cris de coeur for real journalism. The president’s “fake news” and “the enemy of the people” epithets are best understood as a reiteration of these longstanding complaints in the barbed Trump style. This is no small thing. While the complaints are getting more of an airing than they have in the past, the president’s manner is off-putting to many people who were once sympathetic to the point he is making.

.. The mainstream press, meanwhile, is becoming more unabashedly hostile. At least that means there is more transparency, but is that a good thing? I don’t know. It would be good to be rid of the pretense of objectivity. But there are many reporters who do not pretend to be objective; they actually are objective, even if they have strong political views, even if they dislike the president for reasons of substance or style. We need those pros. We need to appreciate what they do, not reject real news because it may be news we don’t want to hear.

.. I do not lose much sleep over a president’s lashing out at what he perceives as, and what often truly is, biased reporting. This is not Turkey; a president would be impeached before a journalist spends an hour in prison for unflattering coverage. And I don’t worry much about whether criticism of a readily identifiable portion of the media harms the entire media as an institution. If journalists are worried about that, they should police their profession better. Jim Acosta hurts journalism more than he hurts Trump, and if the president is really as awful as many journalists contend, then simply asking his administration straightforward questions, rather than posing as “The Resistance,” should expose that.